Full Fiscal Autonomy

[Larky Masher]

What would be the implications of having Full Fiscal Autonomy imposed on us by a Tory majority government?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/030617a8-f56f-11e4-bc6d-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Zp7mFVXw

[Scunnered]

I'm not sure the SNP want it. Swinney was doing his best to distance himself from it on QT.

[Larky Masher]

I'm not sure the SNP want it. Swinney was doing his best to distance himself from it on QT.

Unfortunately I think this would a vote winner for the Tories as they think this will save them money.

[Mark frae Crieff]

Feck it go for it and if we fail lets all go to that Fiscal Utopia that is England..

AS we are all better together.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Mark frae Crieff

[Auld_Reekie]

It's not in the interests of the Tories or the SNP to "impose" anything and certainly not in a way that harms either Scotland or rUK. If they decide on FFA it'll be done as best they can, in a controlled fashion and over a long period of time.

[Larky Masher]

It's not in the interests of the Tories or the SNP to "impose" anything and certainly not in a way that harms either Scotland or rUK. If they decide on FFA it'll be done as best they can, in a controlled fashion and over a long period of time.

It's in the interest of the Tories from a vote winner perspective and they could make an argument that it would make the books of rUK better.

[jockodile]

Give up the finances and bang goes any Project Fear 2.

surely won't happen unless they genuinely wants us gone

[Larky Masher]

Give up the finances and bang goes any Project Fear 2.

surely won't happen unless they genuinely wants us gone

Or impose FFA on their terms, it's a disaster for us and devolution then goes away.

[mariokempes56]

Or impose FFA on their terms, it's a disaster for us and devolution then goes away.

They cannot impose it (would make the poll tax protests like a kids party). It'd be political suicide and lead to global condemnation.

FFA aint simple (obv..) and would require months/years of negotiations to resolve the bits which were/were not to be included. Then there are the arguments over how much we pay for defence and other reserved matters.

Edited May 11, 2015 by mariokempes56

[AlfieMoon]

It does need some serious thought as to the numbers involved. They can then look at how and when this could be phased in without nonsensically damaging Scotland's purse.

We hear at the moment that we have a £7.6bn black hole in Scotland's finances. That black hole is not funded and paid out of the kindness of English/Westminster hearts but instead paid from UK borrowing which I believe is around £70bn(?).

The English economy (led by London) is pulling away from Scotland's economy and this will seemingly continue and paint an increasingly weak picture for Scotland.

If the Tory government are indeed able to eliminate the deficit over the term of this government (which I'll remain sceptical of) - then the question for Scotland is to what extent can our own economy improve to reduce our own net fiscal deficit over a similar period of time. That will determine how fiscally capable (or not) we would appear to be.

The good thing will probably be that the tax raised per capita (currently £400 to the good) will hopefully keep us competitive as our economy grows (albeit more slowly) and we don't suffer the same influx in immigration as what England does.

[Larky Masher]

They cannot impose it (would make the poll tax protests like a kids party). It'd be political suicide and lead to global condemnation.

FFA aint simple (obv..) and would require months/years of negotiations to resolve the bits which were/were not to be included. Then there are the arguments over how much we pay for defence and other reserved matters.

Why would there be global condemnation? I think the Tories now see FFA as a win-win and now with a working majority can push for it.

http://www.capx.co/david-cameron-should-give-scotland-full-fiscal-autonomy-immediately/

Edited May 11, 2015 by Larky Masher

[UPROAR]

we want it, we want it now - the reason Hosie et al were trying to slow down expectations was that they dont want to get rushed into negotiations and fecked over by the Tories....... To do it properly it requires maybe 5-10 years of careful transfer. We can't afford to destabilise the English economy and they can't afford to destabilise ours - we depend on each other for trade too much. I once worked for a corporation who were spun off and left with a huge debt burden which caused them to sink slowly over time. This can't be allowed to happen to us...

However we want it, we want it soon. We want it through a professional and careful transfer of powers. Remember our ongoing net investment in London is an ongoing de-investment in our own economy. Debt is effectively irrelevant as an argument - we have debt now and we will have debt when we change. There is no magic formula which means someone else pays our debts as part of the UK now - we (imo) pay more share than we got to invest here anyway...

One of the real benefits is to move all the jobs and institutions from London to Scotland, this has a cost and will take time - you can't do this stuff overnight and thats why caution is best...

[tomtscotland]

Full fiscal autonomy would be only a short step from independence and for that reason it won't be offered far less imposed.

[Larky Masher]

we (imo) pay more share than we got to invest here anyway...

But there's the opposite perception down south and that's what makes bashing us subsidy junkies a vore winner.

[Larky Masher]

Full fiscal autonomy would be only a short step from independence and for that reason it won't be offered far less imposed.

In my opinion the Tories don't think we can hack and would be willing to test that theory by granting FFA believing it will be either a disaster or an embarrassment for the SNP if they try to body swerve it.

[mariokempes56]

In my opinion the Tories don't think we can hack and would be willing to test that theory by granting FFA believing it will be either a disaster or an embarrassment for the SNP if they try to body swerve it.

Any damage to the SNP would only, in theory at least, improve Labour's chances in Scotland. Why would they do that ?

[Haggis_trap]

Having looked at the economics FFA only makes financial sense for Scotland assuming we get the oil revenues.

This is why I think it will never happen. At present oil revenue is accounted as UK national output.

Despite the entire industry being geographically located in Scotland.

Obviously at the moment oil is at a historic low (brent = $68). So Scotland would be a little worse off.

However longer term I bet that oil returns to $100, and Scotland would be better off ?

Growing world population and consumption of resources makes this near certain.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Haggis_trap

[mariokempes56]

If FFA (and its very poorly defined, if at all) doesn't include ALL revenues including oil,whisky etc, then it just a cop out.

[Haggis_trap]

^ yip - it has to be FULL fiscal autonomy.

this means all oil revenues and corporation tax.

.....and also Scotland no longer contributing to non barnett projects such as HS2!

remember the current figures are currently biased and manipulated to make us look like subisdy junkies.

however assuming oil prices bounce back we are anything but.

"For major infrastructure projects like HS2 the formula assumes that the benefits come equally to Scotland (which is clearly not the case) and we should therefore be allocated a share of the costs. The result is that the money is spent in the South and no corresponding additions are made to the Barnett Formula to compensate Scotland”
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/the-hidden-cost-of-the-union-hs2/

Edited May 11, 2015 by Haggis_trap

[Orraloon]

Having looked at the economics FFA only makes financial sense for Scotland assuming we get the oil revenues.

This is why I think it will never happen. At present oil revenue is accounted as UK national output.

Despite the entire industry being geographically located in Scotland.

Obviously at the moment oil is at a historic low (brent = $68). So Scotland would be a little worse off.

However longer term I bet that oil returns to $100, and Scotland would be better off ?

Growing world population and consumption of resources makes this near certain.

That's not a historic low. Only a couple of months ago it was at about $50 which in itself was about double the historic average taking inflation into account. The oil price isn't as important as politicians would like to make us think. Sure, it's important for the oil companies and the folk working in the industry, but it doesn't make a huge difference to the economy overall.

2014 was the first year in about 25 that the UK became a net importer of oil and gas. So a lower oil price is actually a slight benefit to the economy overall but we are net importers by such a tiny amount that it is hardly worth bothering about.

[Orraloon]

What would be the implications of having Full Fiscal Autonomy imposed on us by a Tory majority government?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/030617a8-f56f-11e4-bc6d-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Zp7mFVXw

That article suggests that we would have limited borrowing powers. IMO, it isn't Full Fiscal Autonomy unless we have FULL borrowing powers.

[Larky Masher]

That article suggests that we would have limited borrowing powers. IMO, it isn't Full Fiscal Autonomy unless we have FULL borrowing powers.

The key theme to take away from the article is the sentiment not the detail (it was written by an obscure MEP so it isn't a policy outline) i.e. there seems to be pressure within the Tory party to push this through.

[Orraloon]

The key theme to take away from the article is the sentiment not the detail (it was written by an obscure MEP so it isn't a policy outline) i.e. there seems to be pressure within the Tory party to push this through.

Ah right, I just had a quick glance at it.

I would welcome it, but an awful lot of stuff would need to be agreed first.

I can't see it happening. I think we might get the Smith commission proposals but not much more and maybe not even that in full. I think they have already ruled out some of the proposals. I think I kinda agree with Union Jack on this one. it's going to be a bit messy.

[Auld_Reekie]

The key theme to take away from the article is the sentiment not the detail (it was written by an obscure MEP so it isn't a policy outline) i.e. there seems to be pressure within the Tory party to push this through.

Right. But you accept that FFA can't come about without full detail? What tax powers, how the two parliaments interact, what institutions Scotland needs, etc. Such a bill (or bills) needs to be written and make it's way through Westminster, the Lords and the Scottish Parliament, and that's before you consider any knock on legislation for the rest of the United Kingdom. And then comes the finance. It will take a LOT of money to implement - Scotland will need it's own Revenue & Customs department, probably a beefed up parliament, some new governmental departments, etc, etc, etc. That comes will come from the UK Treasury - it's not going to be cheap. And after/during all that, Scottish and UK businesses will need to be given time to support the requirements of one of both Treasury's.

The idea that this can be implemented with no more than a Bill through the UK Parliament is absolute fantasy. It cannot be done on a whim. IMO, we'd be looking at this parliament sorting out the legislation and the basics, with the next parliament phasing in the change to FFA. And that's assuming they agreed and started on it right now.

Given the Tories are about to kick off a major EU referendum campaign, Im not sure they'll also want to kick off FFA at the same time. So it's more likely to be the second half of the parliament if at all.

Fundamentally though, the Tories need FFA to work because if it doesn't, Scotland won't be rolling back devolution, it'll be opting for full independence. And they can then kiss goodbye to UN security council, Trident and the glorious Union. I think some folk need to take a few days to take a deep breath and let the realities sink in.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Auld_Reekie

[Larky Masher]

Ah right, I just had a quick glance at it.

I would welcome it, but an awful lot of stuff would need to be agreed first.

I can't see it happening. I think we might get the Smith commission proposals but not much more and maybe not even that in full. I think they have already ruled out some of the proposals. I think I kinda agree with Union Jack on this one. it's going to be a bit messy.

I honestly don't think the Tories will be into negotiating that much they'll try to push through the most disadvantageous scenario possible.